Answer :
Final answer:
The argument in question is an example of inductive reasoning. This classification is due to the fact that the argument takes a general statement and applies it to a specific case, offering a probable, but not certain conclusion.
Explanation:
The argument presented here: 'The overwhelming majority of citizens are against rioting in the streets. Sammy is a citizen, so he probably is against rioting in the streets' is best classified as an inductive argument. The basis for this reason is that it involves reasoning from a general statement to a specific instance.
In an inductive argument, the premises provide some degree of support for the conclusion, but it's still possible for the premises to be true while the conclusion is not. In this case, the conclusion about Sammy's views is probable, not certain, given the truth of the premises. This uncertainty characterizes inductive reasonings.
Remember, inductive inferences involve using observations based on experience to draw general conclusions about the world whereas deductive inferences guarantee the truth of their conclusions, if their premises are valid and true.
Learn more about Inductive Argument here:
https://brainly.com/question/33447531
#SPJ11
